Co-Housing in Amsterdam: Analysis of Practice and Performance of Architect- Led Collective Private Commissioning from a Resident Perspective
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Co-housing in Amsterdam: analysis of practice and performance of architect- led collective private commissioning from a resident perspective. Master thesis Niels Groeneveld Spatial Planning programme Nijmegen School of Management Radboud University Nijmegen May 2018 ii Colophon ______________ Niels Groeneveld [email protected] S4848365 Master programme Spatial Planning Radboud University Nijmegen First reader: Dr. L. J. Carton Second reader: Dr. P. J. Beckers iii Preface __________ This master thesis made me take a big leap into the study of collective and collaborative housing projects. Many thanks to my tutor Dr. Linda Carton for supporting me throughout the process of this thesis, and for challenging me to think critically about existing literature and linking theories. I realised that planning, in its most direct and applied form, is experienced when designing and building one’s own living environment. The opportunity the individual possesses to shape its surroundings, should be celebrated. I would like to thank everyone at Marc Koehler Architects for handing me the opportunity to enlarge my vision as a planner, and for letting me take a closer look to the game of urban development from different perspectives. The most valuable lesson I have learned during my internship is that you must stay true to your own convictions, but when it comes to creating spaces, do not be afraid of letting those using that space decide how you should create that space for them. iv Definitions __________________ Co-housing The term co-housing (spelled with hyphen) is most commonly used throughout Western societies and within academic circles. It is the overarching term for all housing projects that entail a certain collaboration or cooperation throughout the initiation, design and build phase, or have some sort of communal living aspect. It is also referred to as collaborative housing initiatives. Co-housing consist of a wide spectrum, in which various forms of building and or living together reside. Cohousing Cohousing is a form of co-housing, and is predominantly used as a definition for projects where groups of people maintain, mostly intentionally, a communal way of living on a day-to-day basis. Shared chores, social activities or other structural social interactions that transcend traditional nuclear households are possible criteria for cohousing. When referred to cohousing, the perspective of the living arrangement and its impact on individual members is highlighted, and the focus is less on the process of initiation and development of such a project. Collective private commissioning Private commissioning (PC) is the practice of a future home-owner caring for the development of its future home, from acquiring a plot of land to design and completion. Collective private commissioning (or CPC) is the practice where a group (the collective) executes the development of their future homes: one project for multiple houses. Various structures exist since the organisation of the actors involved, depends on each project. When referred to CPC, the perspective is taken on how the group of individuals arranged the development scheme of their projects, or in short, how they build together, and the focus is less on how they eventually structure their living arrangement. Architect-led collective private commissioning This form of CPC has an architect involved that also functions (partly) as process manager. Often, the architect has already provided land(positions) and/or initial designs. Formation of the group occurs subsequently to these initial plans. v Summary ______________ This research inquires a particular form of co-housing called architect-led collective private commissioning. Co-housing is not a new phenomenon, however a trend shows its practice is evolving and it is gaining more importance to a variety of the population in Western societies. Recently, more co- housing projects have been initiated in Amsterdam. Meanwhile, the housing market is overheating, which can be an incentive to use alternative means. Although much is already known about the large variety of co-housing in scientific literature, the resident’s (end-user’s) perspective is often underrepresented. Architect-led collective private commissioning projects generally have a conceptual design prior to the eventual users of the building join the project. In the theoretical framework, a distinction is made between ‘cohousing’ in its narrow definition, and ‘co-housing’ as umbrella term covering various ‘co-building’ and ‘co-living’ concepts. Residents from three projects in Amsterdam have been interviewed. This research aims to find out two things in particular: one, how the practice of architect-led collective private commissioning manifests in the Dutch (and, in particular, the Amsterdam) context; and two, how and to what extent, the architect- led collective private commissioning process leads to the often praised qualities of co-housing, such as community development and better suiting housing designs and arrangements for the end-user. The analysis shows that little shared spaces are realised within the projects, hence no co-living practices are recorded. However, the projects incorporate qualities deriving from co-building practices. Co-building here is represented in two ways. In one way, it is an interpretation of collaborative development with a professional (here, the architect). In another way, it produces the opportunity for individuals to bundle resources and attempt collective action (a group of residents). A prominent induced finding is the articulation of collaborative development (Open Building) in combination with architectural design: lofts of five metres in height. The height dimension added to the individual design freedom, attracting future residents with various motivations; and establishing customised unique houses. The group of residents is forged into a collective before the building phase. Collective decision-making is organised by a parliament structure. To relate to co-housing theory, a new definition is formulated: Superlofts co-building. Even though these are not ‘cohousing’ projects in the narrow sense of the term (in the sense of ‘households living together’), the process does result in increased social cohesion among residents; a community is sensed by the residents. According to the residents, co-building is an intense and stressful endeavour, here caused by unfamiliarity of the practice by all involved actors (municipality, builder, bank, architect, collective). For them, eventually, it resulted in highly satisfying living environments. Results of this research contribute to empirically depict the state co-housing within our contemporary society and, eventually, review its quality and essence regarding our society. Conclusions are relevant to local and national policy-makers, which are, while regarding the effects of co-housing in general, encouraged to enhance the feasibility of collaborative practices such as the Superlofts co-building projects. vi Table of contents Preface iv Definitions v Summary vi SECTION ONE _____________ Introduction 10 1 Introduction and problem statement 11 SECTION TWO ______________ Literature study 20 2 The variety of co-housing 21 3 Distribution of control in co-housing 26 4 Features of co-housing leading to quality 33 5 Social cohesion and Sense of Community 41 6 Conceptual framework 45 SECTION THREE ________________ Methodology 47 7 Research design 48 8 Case selection and description 58 SECTION FOUR _______________ Analysis and conclusions 63 9 Initiation phase 64 10 Design and Build phase 68 11 Living phase 75 12 Conclusions: Answering sub-questions 84 13 Main conclusion 93 vii SECTION FIVE ______________ Theory building and recommendations 94 14 Theory building 95 15 Reflection 100 16 Recommendations 102 Literature 104 List of appendixes 108 viii Section one __________________ Introduction Within cities, forces on the housing markets are influencing people’s behaviour. To some extent, it invokes people to find alternatives. Recently, more co-housing projects have been erected in Amsterdam. Co-housing finds itself in trends such as sharing economy, self-expression and alternative housing forms (Tummers, 2016). To find out what co-housing offers to the city, and more importantly, to its residents, the practice and performance must be assessed. 10 1 Introduction and problem statement Dutch housing market: a qualitative mismatch The building sector has made a revival and developers are able to bare financial risks again to invest in real estate. In some cases, the scale of the developments looks similar to the practice of a decade ago; large projects with high risks and developers in charge. So far, the Dutch housing stock has been shaped by large development companies which resulted in homogeneous neighbourhoods. More than one-third of all dwellings are detached houses (Hulsman, 2017). Recently, real-estate broker website Funda.nl launched a prototype design of a typical Dutch row-house. This house contains the characteristics of what people see as their ‘dream house’ and was created by using big-data from their website users, displayed in figure 1.1 (Hulsman, 2017). This initiated a discussion about the large difference in what the Dutch housing market has to offer, and what home-buyers actually want. It implies a qualitative mismatch of the housing market. To create a more vital housing stock, participatory Figure 1.1 Design based on big data from real estate development practices can be significant website. Source: